<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2013 (3) TMI 444 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=221678</link>
    <description>A composition option accepted under the earlier trade tax scheme was treated as a binding assessment method for the covered period, fixing the assessee&#039;s tax liability for that year. Because the assessee had not opted into the later U.P. VAT Act, 2008 composition scheme for the relevant assessment year, the conditions of that later scheme, including the 6% levy on imported goods beyond the prescribed limit, could not be applied retrospectively. A composition already governed by the earlier enactment could not be altered by importing conditions from a different scheme, and the additional demand was therefore unlawful and set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 05 Mar 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 17 Jul 2014 10:07:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=195030" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2013 (3) TMI 444 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=221678</link>
      <description>A composition option accepted under the earlier trade tax scheme was treated as a binding assessment method for the covered period, fixing the assessee&#039;s tax liability for that year. Because the assessee had not opted into the later U.P. VAT Act, 2008 composition scheme for the relevant assessment year, the conditions of that later scheme, including the 6% levy on imported goods beyond the prescribed limit, could not be applied retrospectively. A composition already governed by the earlier enactment could not be altered by importing conditions from a different scheme, and the additional demand was therefore unlawful and set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 05 Mar 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=221678</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>